Construct and models - Sakineh Yeganegi
Construct and Models; the nature of models In language testing and assessment terms ‘model’ and ‘framework’ are used with a range of different meanings in a testing context. Model means to be able to communicate in second language and framework means to be selection of skills and abilities from a model that are depend on to specific assessment context. A model describes all that we know about language knowledge and language use. The nature of models Glenn Fulcher & Fred Davidson (2007, P.37) express that Mc Namara had introduced three dimensions for all models of language ability. These dimensions are as follow: *what it means to know a language (a model of knowledge) *underlying factors relating to the ability to use language (a model of performance) *how we understand specific instances of language use (actual language use). Fulcher articulated that the first and second dimension called by Heymes ‘knowledge’ and ‘ability for use’. Second dimension ‘ability for use’ contains all factors that influence our ability to communicate. These factors include individual factor, like how we feel, or personality factors. Knowledge and ability for use referred to ‘communicative competence’ or ‘communicative language ability’. Third dimension called actual language use that makes language use possible. Canale and Swains’ Model Canale and Swain in 1980 produced the first model, they called it communicative competence. Communicative competence refers to interaction between grammatical competence or knowledge of the rules of grammar, and sociolinguistic competence or knowledge of the rules of language use. Therefore Canale and Swain expressed a model of knowledge that sociolinguistic competence is added to it. This model has two components: First component is communicative competence or model of knowledge which includes of a) grammatical competence, b) sociolinguistic knowledge, c) strategic competence and second component is actual communication. Canale and Swain outline Hymes’s notion of a speech event ''in terms of participants, settings, form, topic, purpose, key, channel, code, norms of interaction, norms of interpretation and genre. The speech event is said to be the basis for understanding the rules of language use. There several reasons that show this model of communication is depend on language testing: First, the difference between communicative competence and actual performance means that tests should contain tasks that require actual performance as well as tasks or item types that measure knowledge. This is a theoretical rationale for the view that pencil and paper tests of knowledge alone cannot directly indicate whether a language learner can actually speak or write in a communicative situation. Secondly, as communicative competence was viewed as knowledge, discrete point tests were seen as useful for some purposes. Discrete point tests – using items that tested just one isolated item of grammar, but Canale and Swain argued that this criticism was not theoretically sound. Thirdly, the model, especially if it were more ‘fine grained’, could be used to develop criteria for the evaluation of language performance, at different levels of proficiency. It is clear that the implications of a model of language competence and use have much to say about how we evaluate language performance, award a score to that performance and therefore interpret the score in terms of what we hypothesize the test taker is able to do in non-test situations. '''Canales’s Adaptations' Canale and Swain clearly claimed that a theory of performance was impossible, because it include all the variables unrelated to linguistic knowledge that may impact on communication, So they began to introduce a model and changing the definition of communicative competence to definition of Hymes, they stop the use of term ‘performance’ and began to use ‘ actual communication’. Actual communication means: the realization of such knowledge and skill under limiting psychological and environmental conditions such as memory and perceptual constraints, fatigue, nervousness, distractions and interfering background noises. Canale clearly stated that communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using this knowledge when interacting in actual communication. Communicative competence and actual communication as Canale was seen are different. Actual communication consists of knowledge and the skill needed to use this knowledge. In Canale and Swian model grammatical competence remained unchanged from the definition by Canale and Swain. Sociolinguistic Competence refers to sociocultural rules And the rules of discourse that taken to discourse competence category. In the 1980 model strategic competence defined as a set of strategies that used to overcome breakdowns or problems in communication. Discourse competence that is the new category in model defined as the ability to produce ‘a unified spoken or written text in different genres’ using cohesion in form and coherence in meaning. Bachman’s Model of Communicative Language Ability (CLA) ' Bachman’s model of (CLA) is the expansion of pervious models, but in his model there are two different. First, in Bachmane’s clearly we can distinguishes between what constitutes ‘knowledge’ and what constitutes ‘skill’ that was unclear in Canales model. Second, Bachman’s model clearly try to characterize the processes that various component interact with each other and with the context in language use. There are three component in Bachman’ Model (CLA): 1. Language competence (knowledge). 2. Strategic competence. Strategic competence is also said to be affected by the knowledge structures (world knowledge) of the language user. 3. psychophysiological mechanisms, which enable ‘the actual execution of language as a physical phenomenon’ . In discourse competence there are two elements cohesion and coherence. Cohesion clearly occurs under textual competence, while coherence as a title disappears and is subsumed under illocutionary competence. Term pragmatic competence, which is defined as the acceptability of utterances within specific contexts of language use, and rules determining the successful use of language within specified contexts. Pragmatic competence is therefore broken into two further components. Illocutionary competence concerns the performance of language functions, as described by Halliday (1973), and speech acts (following Austin, 1962). ■ ''Ideational: expressing propositions, information or feelings ■ Manipulative: affecting the world around us, including ■ Instrumental: getting things done through the use of speech acts ■ Regulatory: controlling the behaviour of others ■ Interactional: managing interpersonal relationships ■ Heuristic: extending our knowledge of the world ■ Imaginative: the humorous or aesthetic use of language. Sociolinguistic competence is defined as ‘the sensitivity to, or control of the conventions of language use that are determined by the features of the specific language use context. The components that are identified as being relevant are: ■ dialect or variety ■ differences in register field of discourse (context) mode of discourse (discourse domain) style of discourse (frozen, formal, consultative, casual, intimate) ■ sensitivity to naturalness (what we would expect a native to say in the context) ■ cultural references and figures of speech. Bachman argues that strategic competence is best seen in terms of a psycholinguistic model of speech production, made up of three components: Assessment component ■ Identify information needed for realizing a communicative goal in a particular context. ■ Decide which language competences we have to achieve the goal. ■ Decide which abilities and knowledge we share with our interlocutor. ■ Evaluate the extent to which communication is successful. Planning component ■ Retrieve information from language competence. ■ Select modality or channel. ■ Assemble an utterance. Execution component ■ Use psychophysical mechanisms to realize the utterance. The 1990 model was restructured in Bachman and palmer (1996) some of the changes that Bachman made in Canale and Swain became more explicit. These changes were discussed by McNamara (1996: 72) and Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) are as follows: ■ the introduction of affective (non-cognitive) factors in language use ■ re-labelling ‘knowledge structures’ as ‘topical knowledge’, and ■ reconceptualizing strategic competence as a set of metacognitive strategies. In Bachman and Palmer (1996) Model the central role given to Strategic competence. Strategic competence defined as a set of metacognitive strategies or ‘higher order process’ that explain the interaction of the knowledge and affective components of language use. '''Celce-Murcia Dorniye and Thurrell’s Model of Communicative Competence Celce-Murcia et al. (1995:5) argue that in Canale and Swain (1980) model there has been no serious t ry to generate detailed content specifications for CLT that directly related to communicative competence model. In other hand they mention to Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) models, these models only relating to the context of language testing, rather than more general models of communicative competence. Therefore, they try to produce a detail description of what communicative competence entails in order to use the sub-components as a content base in syllabus design’ (1995: 6). This model includes of five components. 1. Discourse component, 2, Sociocultural competence,3. Linguisticcompetence,4. Actionalcompetence, 5 .Strategic competence. In this model discourse competence stand at the center of the model, but in Bachman and Palmer model reunites cohesion and coherence were separated. Actional competence relates to the knowledge of speech acts needed to engage in interpersonal exchanges. Sociocultural competence includes the knowledge related to context. Contextual factors include participant and situational variables, while stylistic appropriateness relates to politeness conventions and stylistic variation by register and formality.While cultural factors include the usual dialect and cross-cultural communication, some background knowledge may be implied in this component, as it is said to include social conventions and awareness of values, beliefs and living conditions. Strategic competence is said to consist of avoidance strategies, such as avoiding a topic of conversation, and achievement strategies, such as circumlocution or the use of delexicalized nouns (such as ‘thing’). Also included are stalling strategies, and self-monitoring strategies such as repair or rephrasing. Finally, but crucially, interactional strategies are listed, such as asking for help, seeking clarification or checking that a listener has comprehended what has been said. This model is not very different from Canale and Bachman and Palmer models. It contains a knowledge component and an ability for use component following Heymes. Celce-Murcia et al. (1995: 30) state that: as McGroarty points out, ‘communicative competence’ can have different meanings depending on the learners and learning objectives inherent in a given context. Some components (or sub-components) may be more heavily weighted in some teaching-learning situations than in others. Therefore, during the course of a thorough needs analysis, a model such as ours may be adapted and/or reinterpreted according to the communicative needs of the specific learner group to which it is being applied. Interactional Competence Interactional competence involves knowing and using the mostly-unwritten rules for interaction in various communication situations within a given speech community and culture. It includes, among other things, knowing how to initiate and manage conversations and negotiate meaning with other people. It also includes knowing what sorts of body language, eye contact, and proximity to other people are appropriate and acting accordingly. With reference to the Celce- Murcia et al. model,Markee (2000: 64) argues that: the notion of interactional competence minimally subsumes the following parts of the model: the conversational structure component of discourse competence, the non-verba l communicative factors component of socioc ultural competence, and all of the components of strategic competence (avoidance and reduction strategies, achievemen t and compensatory strategies, stalling and time-gaining strategies, self-monitoring strategies and interactional strategies). Inteactional competences stated by Kramsch (1986) argue that talk is co-constructed by the participants in communication, so responsibility for talk cannot be assigned to a single individual. It is this that makes testing interactional competence challenging for language testing. Kramsh and Young (1998:7) argue interactional competence is not a trait that resides in an individual, nor a competence that ‘is independent of the interactive practice in which it is (or is not) constituted’.